AN ULSTER Unionist-led challenge to a motion passed at Fermanagh and Omagh District Council to change policy around the erection of bilingual signage, has failed.

Legal opinion was obtained on the validity of the motion brought by Sinn Fein, but this found insufficient evidence of a disproportionately adverse impact on a section of the community.

During the February Council meeting, the motion passed by majority to change the current policy on bilingual signage process, meaning that consultation would be initiated and deemed adequate by an expression of interest by a resident or residents, or by a councillor.

A percentage of 15 per cent or more of residents positively responding to erect a second sign/nameplate would be sufficient, subject to residual discretion, and protections and mitigations.

However, within days the Ulster Unionist grouping submitted a challenge through the ‘Call-In’ procedure, seeking reconsideration of the decision with legal opinion obtained.

A report was brought before the April meeting by Chief Executive Alison McCullagh, who advised that for a Call-In to have merit under the specific grounds in which it was initiated, it must be on the basis the decision would have a disproportionately adverse impact on a section of the community.

However, Ms. McCullagh told members legal opinion had concluded the challenge did not have merit, and there is insufficient evidence of an adverse impact.

The legal opinion also noted an element of the motion is not entirely clear, particularly on how the Council would operate when an application is submitted.

In addition, it was felt full consideration of the effect of the motion cannot be completed until the Council policy on bilingual street signs is reconsidered and, if necessary, amended.

Ms. McCullagh pointed out the legal opinion further advised: “Significant re-consideration of Council policy on bilingual street signs is required in light of the motion; in particular due to the quantum of the threshold change from 66 per cent to 15 per cent.

“This is a material change and the effect of such and how it is managed requires careful deliberation ... specifically, as to how Council officers will consider and apply.”

She recommended a vote on the motion be re-taken.

Sinn Fein’s Councillor Chris McCaffrey, who tabled the motion, said: “It’s sad that time and ratepayers’s money has been wasted to confirm something that could have easily been looked up in any of the United Nations or European Charters on linguistic minorities.

“It’s also very clear that those who opposed this policy change had spent no time researching.

“It’s been an exercise in duplicity and unfortunately redundant ... to have this come back in front of us.

“I’m confident in the policy change put forward. The Irish language has been subject to much opposition.

“We expect opposition, although it is unfortunate that seems to be the way some people treat the language.”

He called on the Council to move forward and to “waste no more time dealing with this matter, because it’s an insult to a very rich and vibrant part of our community ... seemingly all this is lost on some of the opposition”.

‘Complex nature’

Responding, Councillor John McClaughry, Ulster Unionist, who submitted the Call-In, said: “I acknowledge the complex nature of turning this into Council policy.

“We have heard the Irish language rights, and that this is not political.

“However, this is Northern Ireland, and everything is political, and by that, it then becomes sectarian.

“No-one is doubting the enthusiasm for the Irish language, especially the motion proposers, Councillor McCaffrey and Councillor [Tommy] Maguire.

“But this has to be weighed against the fact they are elected representatives of Sinn Fein.

“Any move by Sinn Fein to force something on the Protestant, Unionist or Loyalist community is automatically viewed with great suspicion and fear, as an attempt to erode their Britishness.”

He concluded: “I must warn that forcing the Irish language on a community against their wishes, or the vast majority of them, is not the way to engage.

“Realistically, the Executive needs to step up and resolve all language issues in a fair and equitable manner.”

The motion was restated and passed 24 to 14 with one abstention, mirroring the original voting pattern of a clear split down party lines.